Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 25, 1981)
Viewpoint The Battalion Texas A&M University Wednesday March 25, 1981 Slouch By Jim Earle ‘Do you mean it? Today isn't April Fool's Day? Contrasting views from inside, outside By DAVID S. BRODER WASHINGTON — “We are not to be come part of the bureaucracy,” Secretary of Interior James Watt says. “Frequent Cabinet meetings keep us isolated and in unity. There’s comfort in that.” That is just one of the fascinating and conflicting views of the Reagan Administra tion offered in the new issue of Public Opin ion magazine, the always provocative jour nal published by the American Enteiprise Institute. The insider view is offered in a joint interview with Watt and Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrick; the outsider view, by Herbert Stein, the conservative economist who has seen it all before as a member and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Nixon Administration. The contrast in perspectives could not be more dramatic. Kirkpatrick, a political sci ence professor, and Watt, a successful attorney, are among the brightest and most ideologically sophisticated people in the Cabinet. She says in the interview that “the pur suit and defense of the American national interest is a moral goal fitting for a free people. ” He says he has a “theological com mitment” to the belief that in “seeking to establish the freedom of the individual,” he can also assure the “accountablility of that free individual not only to society and its fellow members but to a higher authority, being God.” Well, this is weighty stuff, but what is striking is the chirpy tone in which these two heavy thinkers describe the euphoric sensations of being part of the Reagan movement. The tone is less that of a skep tical scholar or a cautious lawyer than that of teen-agers telling their friends about their first dates. “We are not to become part of the bureaucracy,” Watt says. “Frequent Cabinet meetings keep us isolated and in unity. There’s comfort in that. When I go against my bureaucracy, the issues are often against me. But when I come back to the fold, I am nurtured.” Kirkpatrick sounds the same theme. “Frequent Cabinet meetings serve to re mind us that we are a team, that we have certain shared pruposes, and that these purposes override all our other functions. The idea of collective decision-making con tinually reaffirms our corporate identity and purpose .... I come out of every Cabinet meeting feeling good. I almost al ways go in concerned about problems in my own area. And I come out of them almost high....” In explicit and perhaps intentional coun terpoint to this intellectually intoxicated burbling, the editors lead off the magazine with a sober — almost churlish — piece by Stein, Nixon’s no-nonsense economist. Stein’s message to his fellow- conservatives is simple: Sober up. He casts a cold, fishy eye on the rhetoric of the Reagan administration and says the prom ise that massive tax cuts will spur economic growth and productivity, while funding big increases in defense spending and protect ing everyone against poverty is a dangerous oversimplification. “The whole tenor of the recent discussion ... has generated the expectation that rather simple and pleasant measures will yield large and prompt results in the form of more rapid growth,” Stein writes. “This is dangerous in many ways. One of the most serous is that it supports the belief that the inflation problem can be solved without having to take any of the bitter medicine of spending cuts, tight money, high interest rates and unemployment. This belief is almost certainly in error, and basing policy upon it will lead to more inflation and to slower rather than more rapid growth.” And then Stein does something that no liberal commentator would dare do. He re minds the euphoric Reaganites that their belief that “wishing can make it so” has led other Republicans to disaster. “Many examples come to mind,” he says — and cites the cruelist. “Herbert Hoover in 1932 recommended a tax increase in the thought it would help restore ‘confidence’ and so get the country moving again.” Almost 40 years later, he notes, Richard Nixon slapped on wage and price controls, “not because he thought they would really cure inflation but because he thought that a period of months in which prices did not rise would lead the public to expect price stability, and that would result in actual price stability.” # It did not, of course. At the moment, the Reaganites are not in a mood to listen to cautionary tales from their party’s past. “Isolated and in unity,” they prefer to bask in a constantly reaffirmed “corporate iden tity and purpose.” But those of us who do not share in the Cabinet “high” might ponder a point Stein makes about his fellow-conservatives. “Conservatives,” he says, “are typically leery of government action, and so they like to believe in homeopathic solutions for the problems they see — solutions which give big results for little action.” Warped Dems shy away from prograu By ROBERT SHEPARD United Press International WASHINGTON — Having been badly mauled in the last election. Democrats in Congress seem to be biding their time and avoiding a direct confrontation with the Re publican forces, particularly with the Reagan White House. Democratic leaders are clearly skeptical of President Reagan’s plan to revive the nation’s economy by drastic budget and tax cuts, but they are faced with the harsh real ity of the election sweep that put Reagan in the White House, turned control of the Senate over to Republicans, and sharply reduced the Democratic majority in the House. The voters expressed their will and the Democrats are not anxious to oppose that will, lest their ranks be further decimated in the next election. Their chief hope seems to be that the voters will have a change of heart or that the administration’s proposed remedies will be proven wrong. Speaker Thomas O’Neill promised Reagan a political honeymoon, free of cri ticism, for the first several months of his administration. And in his daily meeting with reporters, O’Neill regularly intones that the Democrats “are not going to be obstructionists. ” In both the House and Senate the Democrats have gone to remarkable lengths to cooperate with Republicans in arranging timetables for the administra tion’s proposals to get prompt and fair con sideration. And when the administration was slow in getting details of its economic plan to Con gress, the Democrats complained indig nantly that their cooperative spirit was being abused and the committees could not begin work on Reagan’s plan. The Democratic leadership’s record of cooperation with the Reagan mandate is thus exemplary, but in their hearts the Democrats remain firm nonbelievers. And they expect — or at least hope — that the public will soon see through the plan. Whei fWelco Show’ Hail of In the past few weeks, O’Neillkip? s ca ' indicated he expects the public wilpP 16 ^ 1 tually reach such an understandiniT u j presumably, protest. Fylils; In a recent television newsjalg r 01 O’Neill thought he saw a glimmer that, turning tide, and promptly mentiap His the next day in his meeting with repn ei^ce Y< But so far O’Neill and the other crats do not have evidence of a it|..g in0 j <:e change in public sentiment. HecoH^ive* that Reagan is doing a betterjobofrajj His the public than the Democrats. There is “widespread misunderstand ing” about the administration’s economic program and few people understand how drastically they will be affected if the prog ram goes through, O’Neill said recently. The Democrats find comfort in t that some of Reagan’s budget opposed by some of his fellow Repu 1 One of the first proposals to re« full House will be a bill todelayail tiled increase in dairy price suppe program that has enjoyed GOP supp! | the past. “I think the average person on the street has no concept of the severe changes” in store for them under the Reagan adminis tration, he said. “Opposition seems to be Republicans themselves,” O’Neill with satisfaction recently. And, as if anxious to hurry tbema Republican discomfort, O’Neill saidi would quickly be brought upforaiij the full House. *a*x*r**£ lill & I lounti Tuesdi his mu two pe group. It s your turn Five nients w Universi The aj of Dr. C I — Ch Mr. X should give CARP a chance — Dr affairs, C Dl leee of E Editor: An advertisement in the March 11th Battalion crucified a student group that is trying to organize on campus — CARP. The person who bought the ad (Mr. X) didn’t identify himself/herself, but wasn’t afraid to fill it with emotionally charged words, nar row-minded views, and intolerance. to what the Bible clearly states ...” 2) “The Bible is not taken literally ... Mr. X is upset because Moon’s interpre tation of the Bible is different from his own. Mr. X charged CARP with being decep tive about its affiliation with the Unification Church. CARP members are not required to be “Moonies” and the CARP representa tive I spoke with told me the Unification Church was a major supporter of CARP. She didn’t attempt to “deceive” me —just told me the truth. There are many ways to understand the Bible and a “literal interpretation” is just one. If the Bible “clearly states” its mes sages, then why are there so many different Christian denominations? How can so many people (including Mr. X) spend so much time and money telling us what the Bible means? How can you condemn an individual or a group for thinking different ly than you do? The CARP members I’ve heard about and the ones I’ve met really are, to lx' Mr. X’s words”. . . harmless, loving, God, Jesus Christ, love, unity and ft God, Jesus Christ, love, unity am’ tion. They open their homes to yo« invite you on weekend retreats. They — D Gradual — Dr. ducatic Cargill rrentl) epartir avis, w you feel warm, and ' ' wanted, Well, maybe Mr. X overdid it a little, ft fej are approximately two CARP nieW^ ■ campus, less than twenty in the entire^ ■ area. Come on, give them a break , I David ’ Editor’s note: This letter was accompi by 3 other signatures. Mr. X accused CARP (I assume he meant the Unification Church. We shouldn’t con fuse our organizations.) of a series of “de ceptions” involving interpretation of the Bi ble. All of these accusations are summed up in two sentences Mr. X wrote: 1) “... almost everything that CARP teaches (sic) is dyametrically (sic) opposed By Scott McCullar The Battalion MEMBER ISPS 045 Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor - Dillard Stone Managing Editor Angelique Copeland Asst. Managing Editor Todd Woodard City Editor Debbie Nelson Asst..City Editor Marcy Boyce Sports Editor. . . . ; Ritchie Priddy Photo Editor Greg Gammon Focus Editor Cathy SaathofF Asst. Focus Editor Susan Hopkins News Editors Venita McCellon, Scot K. Meyer Staff Writers Carolyn Barnes, •Jane G. Brust, Terry Duran, Bernie Fette, Cindy Gee, Phyllis Henderson, Kathleen McElroy, Belinda McCoy, Marjorie McLaughlin, Kathy O’Connell, Richard Oliver, Rick Stolle Cartoonist Scott McCullar Photographers Chuck Chapman, Brian Tate The Battalion also served as a laboratory newipif* students in reporting, editing and within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any edi should be directed to the editor. LETTERS POUCY Letters to the Editor should not exceed 350 length, and are subject to being cut if they are 1( editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for s^' j | length, but will make every effort to maintain the intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the*-' and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, ^ not subject to the same length constraints as ^ I Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Ed®*' Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M W' iS College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POUCY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions ofTexas A&M Universi ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion is published daily during Texas and spring semesters, except for holiday and exaK'f, periods. M ail subscriptions are $ 16.75 per semester b 1 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertisttr furnished on request. „ Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonal^fl ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX^| United Press International is entitled exclusive!) t ’l use for reproduction of all news dispatches credits I Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein re^j Second class postage paid at College Station,TX^ £